TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication – Decided in favour of Assessee. - I.T.A. No. 8200/M/2010, I.T.A. No.8353/M/2010 - - - Dated:- 12-2-2014 - Shri D. Karunakara Rao And Shri Amit Shukla,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri Dharmesh Shah For the Respondent : Shri P. Daniel, DR ORDER Per D. Karunakara Rao, AM: There are two appeals under consideration and they are cross appeals. Both these appeals are filed against the order of CIT (A)-40, Mumbai dated 16.9.2010 for the assessment year 2007-08. Since, the issues raised in both the appeals are interlinked, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these two appeals are clubbed, heard combinedly and disposed of in this consolidated order. Appeal wise and ground wise adjudication is given in the succe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icating the respective ground relating to the rejection / reliability of the books of account. Para 5 from the said order of the Tribunal (supra) is relevant in this regard and the same reads as under: 5. Ground no.4 relates to the action of the Ld CIT (A) in confirming the liabilities amounting to Rs. 11,24,99,052/- and Rs. 12,61,36,245/- respectively for the AYs 2005- 06 and 2006-07 towards interest expenditure claimed by the assessee. It is pertinent to note that the findings given in para 3.3 above in respect of rejection / reliability of the books of accounts and the proposed adjudication of the Ld CIT (A) in view of the said direction may have direct impact on the issue of the impugned liability, we set aside this issue to the fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hearing the learned counsel admitted that this additional ground was wrongly raised and it has no substance. Under these circumstances we reject the additional ground. 8. In the result, assessee s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. I.T.A. No.8353/M/2010 (AY:2007-2008) (By Revenue) 9. This appeal filed by the Revenue on 1.12.2010 is against the order of the CIT (A)-40, Mumbai dated 16.9.2010 for the AY 2007-2008. In this appeal, Revenue raised the following grounds which read as under: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) erred in holding that the assessee being a notified person under the Special Court (Trial of Offences relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
